Christopher Hicks

The appellant appealed his sentence of three years' imprisonment and a lifetime driving prohibition for driving-related offences.

He argued the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to his guilty plea and failed to give 3:1 credit for pre-trial custody.

The Court of Appeal held that even if there were errors in principle, the three-year sentence was fit given the appellant's horrendous record for driving-related offences.

However, the Court varied the lifetime driving prohibition to a 10-year prohibition.

The sentence appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for eight firearm-related offences, arguing the convictions were unreasonable and the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) principles.

The appellant was arrested after police found a bag containing a firearm and ammunition in the back seat of a car he was leaning into.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude based on circumstantial evidence that the bag belonged to the appellant and that he was in possession of it.

The court also found no merit in the W.(D.) ground of appeal.

The appellants were convicted of first-degree murder in a contract killing.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury that lies told by one of the appellants to the police could be used to infer his participation in a murder scheme, rather than merely a carjacking scheme as the defence argued.

The Court of Appeal held this was a misdirection, as the post-offence conduct had no probative value in determining the level of culpability between manslaughter and murder.

The error tainted the convictions of all three appellants.

The appeals were allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence for offences including being a party to pointing a loaded shotgun in a public place and possessing the weapon while subject to three firearms prohibitions and probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly distinguished between the appellant and his brother when imposing sentence.

Given the gravity of the offences, the appellant's record, and other aggravating circumstances, the sentence was deemed fit and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his murder conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury charge regarding the requisite intent for murder by reason of mental disorder falling short of insanity, and by leaving the defence of insanity to the jury over the objections of both counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's charge was fair and balanced, and that there was an air of reality to the insanity defence given the appellant's own doctor raised the issue.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The Crown appealed an order quashing a subpoena that required the respondent to testify at the preliminary inquiry of his brother and another co-accused, who were charged with first-degree murder.

The respondent, who was separately charged with the same murder, had given a video-taped statement implicating the co-accused but later backed away from it during his testimony.

The application judge quashed the subpoena, finding the Crown's predominant purpose was to obtain incriminating evidence against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Crown had a legitimate purpose in examining the respondent to potentially admit his out-of-court statement under the KGB framework and to probe the co-accused's involvement.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and the expert's opinion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly rejected the appellant's improbable and inconsistent testimony and correctly assessed the factors proving the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in admitting a witness statement as past recollection recorded, as the witness could not definitively say he was telling the truth when he gave it.

Without this statement, several convictions were unreasonable or lacked corroboration.

The court also found the trial judge materially misapprehended identification evidence on another count.

The appeal was allowed, acquittals entered on some counts, and a new trial ordered for the remainder.

The respondents were convicted of extortion with a firearm and other offences, which carry mandatory minimum sentences.

The trial judge gave the respondents credit for time spent on strict pre-trial bail (house arrest), reducing their sentences below the statutory minimums.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while time spent in pre-sentence custody can be credited against a mandatory minimum sentence, time spent on strict bail does not constitute a 'punishment of imprisonment' under the Criminal Code and cannot be used to reduce a mandatory minimum sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to a 1995 home robbery after being arrested over ten years later.

The Crown and defence made a joint submission for a six-month custodial sentence, but the sentencing judge rejected it and imposed an 18-month sentence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge failed to explain how the joint submission was contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, as required by R. v. Cerasuolo.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to the jointly submitted six months.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years and one month imprisonment.

He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on self-defence under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code, the interplay of self-induced intoxication, the application of W.(D.) principles to his police statements, and the exclusion of evidence regarding the deceased's prior argument.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the vicious and unrelenting nature of the attack.

The appellant appealed his convictions for kidnapping, sexual assault, and criminal harassment of his former partner, as well as his 54-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred by refusing to admit evidence of prior sexual activity with the complainant, by allowing evidence of his prior discreditable conduct to show motive, and by failing to leave the defence of mistaken belief in consent to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the procedural requirements for admitting prior sexual history, properly instructed the jury on the highly probative discreditable conduct evidence, and correctly concluded there was no air of reality to the mistaken belief defence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the quantum of a restitution order imposed at sentencing.

The parties agreed the original order exceeded the complainant's actual loss, contrary to s. 738(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and should be reduced to at least $59,496.99.

The appellant argued for a further reduction to $43,240, asserting the disputed $16,256.99 related to transactions where goods were actually delivered.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the Crown failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the additional amount related to the offences for which the appellant was convicted.

The appeal was allowed and the restitution order was reduced to $43,240.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of child pornography, sexual interference, and sexual assault, as well as his sentence.

He argued that the destruction of a videotaped interview prejudiced his right to make full answer and defence, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek a stay, failing to request counselling records, and failing to advance a fabrication defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice from the lost videotape, no merit to the ineffective assistance claims, and no error in the trial judge's consideration of evidence or the sentence imposed.

The applicant, charged with murder and attempted murder, sought an order directing a review of his detention order under s. 680 of the Criminal Code.

The Chief Justice found no realistic likelihood that a panel of the Court of Appeal would find the bail judge erred in detaining the applicant on the secondary ground.

The applicant's request to introduce fresh evidence was declined, with the Chief Justice noting that material changes in circumstances should generally be brought as a renewed bail application before the Superior Court.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to renewing the application in the Superior Court.

The respondent was convicted of manslaughter after stabbing his landlady 107 times while intoxicated.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of 11 years, deducting pre-trial custody for a net sentence of 4.5 years.

The Crown appealed, arguing the sentence was manifestly unfit and that the trial judge erred by treating the 8 to 12 year range for 'aggravated manslaughter' established in R. v. Clarke as an immutable cap.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while subcategorizing manslaughter is not a useful sentencing approach, the trial judge did not fetter his discretion and imposed a fit sentence based on all relevant circumstances.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly address the Long-Term Offender (LTO) question.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the medical experts were not examined on the LTO issue and the trial judge did not effectively decide the question.

The court concluded that a new hearing was necessary.

The appellant was convicted of assault, assault with a weapon, and sexual assault against his wife.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting prior discreditable conduct evidence, reversing the burden of proof, misusing the complainant's statements to her doctor, and failing to consider good character evidence.

He also appealed his 30-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or evidentiary rulings.

While the trial judge erred in stating a penitentiary sentence was mandatory, the Court of Appeal upheld the 30-month sentence as fit given the serious domestic violence context.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment and the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in convicting the appellant based on a single communication on the date specified, as the offence requires repeated communication.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The Court also varied a probation condition regarding child access, holding that the Family Court was capable of properly supervising the appellant's relationship with his children.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding he intended to mislead the court at his bail hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding that the appellant presented evidence he knew was dishonest to advance his position was supported by the evidence, and that the evidence did not need to be on a material point.